Tim F. Williams
What you should know about me:
- Actually enjoys reading case law and is constantly learning new technologies
- Played a small part in helping bring freedom to a man wrongly convicted of a felony
- Learned how to MIG weld and use a plasma arc torch after working on lengthy litigation on that topic
Tim’s litigation and trial practice includes handling cases involving claims of patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, claims of unfair trade practices or anti-trust violations, commercial disputes having warranty, misrepresentation, and breach of contract claims, as well as a variety of complex business cases.
Additionally, Tim has experience in contested administrative proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including post grant review proceedings (e.g. inter partes review and reexamination of U.S. patents) and trademark oppositions.
Other aspects of Tim’s practice involves the preparation and drafting of infringement and non-infringement opinions, clearance opinions, prosecution of patent and trademark applications, corporate acquisitions, and assisting clients in managing international intellectual property portfolios.
The following are representative matters in which Tim has represented Dority & Manning’s clients:
- Certain High-Density Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof (337-TA-1194), International Trade Commission, Section 337 Investigation (defended against multiple patents concerning high-density fiber optic equipment)
- University of South Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., d/b/a “GE Appliances,” M.D. Fla. (defended against patent relating to volumetric controls for fluid dispensing, asserted IPR against the patent)
- InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Groups, Inc., M.D. Fla. (asserted multiple patents relating to merchandise security systems, defended against related IPRs)
- Mobile Tech Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., D. Or. (defended against patents relating merchandise security systems and trademark claims)
- InVue Security Products v. Mobile Tech Inc., W.D.N.C. (asserted multiple patents relating to merchandise security systems and trademark claims)
- Z94 Inc et al. v. Salt Life, LLC, S.D. Cal. (defended against trademark claims)
- Achieve It Inc. v. Napoleon Hill Foundation, D.S.C. (asserted trademark claims)
- Johnson Screens, Inc. et al. v. Polydeck Screen Corp., W.D. Pa. (defended against patent claims)
- Michelin North America v. Aeolus Tire., N.D. Ala. (asserted design patent relating to tires)
- Michelin North America v. Dynamic Tire Corporation et al., N.D.N.Y. (asserted design patent and copyright infringement relating to tires, asserted implied passing off, false advertising, and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act)
Background & Credentials
- Clemson University (B.S., Chemical Engineering, magna cum laude, 1st in class, 1989)
- University of Texas (Ph.D. candidate, Chemical Engineering, research of polymeric impregnation with supercritical fluids)
- University of South Carolina (J.D., cum laude, 1994)
- South Carolina
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. District Court of South Carolina
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Carolina Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Association (Board of Directors, President 2005-2006)
- Graduate, Riley Institute, Diversity Leaders Initiative
- Volunteer Solicitor, 7th Judicial Circuit, (Spartanburg County, 2011)
- New Prospect Baptist Church (Chairman of Deacon Board 2012-2013; Building Program 2013-2014)
- The Best Lawyers in America (Intellectual Property Law)
- Managing Intellectual Property “IP Star” for patent office proceedings and patent prosecution (2020/21)
- Editor in Chief, South Carolina Law Review 1993-94
- Order of the Coif
- Order of the Wig and Robe
- Moot Court
- American Institute of Chemical Engineers Academic Achievement Award
- When Has a Patentee Performed a Reasonable Pre-Suit Investigation Under Rule 11?, Dority & Manning (June, 13, 2018).
- Avoiding Knowledge of a U.S. Patent Does Not Preclude Willful Infringement
- When Copying Becomes Criminal: The Stiff Criminal Penalties for Copyright Infringement, South Carolina Lawyer, May 2003.
News & Events
When patent infringement is determined, 35 U.S.C. § 284 permits courts to “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), the Supreme Court held that such enhanced damages are “designed as a ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious …
Looking for a change of pace?
D&M is committed to empowering employees with the right training, tools, and resources to reach their highest potential. Explore opportunities for every stage of your career.